Oh, I took your meaning to begin with. I understand your use of the word, "lords" was technically accurate. However, the nuance I was attempting to relate was that you do yourself, and all of us, a disservice by using such labels in this context.
Just as it might be technically accurate to describe the sheriffs in this article as 'heroic' or 'public servants' when they prevent a murder or otherwise act to thwart those that seek to harm the public, in context of their actions described here, they are acting as criminals. What good they might otherwise do, and whatever labels we might use to describe them in context of performing that good, does not apply in this case. Using words like "lords" - that also imply a certain dignity and refinement (as not all acts of lords involve stealing from the public at the point of a sword) - distracts ever so slightly from the specifics of the issue and therefore the specifics of possible solutions.
Regardless of whether you accept my nuance, it's easy for me to see we share a very similar sentiment. It's also apparent you possess an above average command of the written word. All writers are propagandists whether they appreciate it or not. And all sorts of very different words can be used to describe a given situation accurately. So, given your sentiment, I encourage you to select your words carefully so as to not only convey your meaning accurately, but also frame them in a way that does the greatest service to your sentiment.
So, 'yes', I get it, many affluent people/groups abuse their power and they've been doing it for a long time. But now let's take it to the next level and frame those bastards in the worst possible light possible at all times (of course, whilst remaining accurate and refraining from outright hyperbole). Make every attempt to refrain from using their labels/framing when equally accurate terms apply. Terms that better describe them for the immoral human waste they've become. ...is the point I'm trying to make here.
The criminal plutocrats/oligarchs do everything they can - all day, every day - to control the narrative. They choose their words carefully so as to convey a certain meaning. It's up to us to take back that narrative.
Keep fighting the good fight. Stay strong brother.
The justice system doesn't even use forensics to detect culprits.
They choose their culprits and then seek out evidence to convict them. When a suspect is acquitted, they assume he escape justice through a technicality. It doesn't even occur to them that they got the wrong guy in the first place.
They certainly don't re-open the case and look for other suspects.
So why do we regard acquittals as false and evasion, but regard convictions as absolute, enough that we can doom them to a heinously cruel penal system?
We need to completely change how we investigate, and then refine our forensic science accordingly.
Pirates and emperors: Our state policies are more monstrous than the crimes of those trapped in the system.
And we need to change our penal system to include the presumption we probably got the wrong guy and he's there to be reformed and contained, but doesn't necessarily deserve punishment.
"While you are one of the idiots that are often wrong about everything I think the point is that it's easy for me to tell. Your posts come off as arrogant, putting yourself 'above' anyone as if you somehow have a superior understanding of what's right and wrong than everyone else when clearly that's not the case at all. Even when people point out how wrong you are you absolutely refuse to acknowledge it, ever. But people see right through your nonsense."
Slow clap. You almost had some valid points and then you destroyed it with a massive, hateful personal attack.
"Techdirt, OTOH, exists in a much more organic environment where competition thrives and it still retains viewership."
By telling the read what they want to hear, and not worrying about the fuller truth. Your long rant pretty much missed the point entirely, but hey, after the personal attack, I didn't expect any less.
It's worse than that actually, with the 'good faith exception' idea courts have basically made it clear that the less police know of the law the better off they are, as they can get away with more.
Members of the public are required to follow all the laws, even the ones that they aren't aware of, as 'ignorance of the law is no excuse', yet for police, the group (theoretically) tasked with upholding and enforcing the law ignorance of the law not only is an acceptable excuse, it's a greatly desired state.
Considering the magnitudes of idiocy done in the name of parenting, I can understand the arguments that there might be limits.
Considering that US culture seems to hate promiscuous girls and boys who don't fight (when outsized and outnumbered), I can understand an argument for a child's privacy rights being violated by his or her parents.
I got lucky, but I know people who didn't and there should be a vector for redress for them, and there isn't.
This is because 'forfeited' money goes directly into NYPD Officers private bank accounts.
The sooner this murderous gang of thieves claiming to be a police department is shut down and investigated for the dozens of murders, the theft of public property (1/5 of all NYPD officers have been accused of burglary whilst on duty), shooting random black people for fun (They even have a game similiar to billiards where one officer beats and/or shoots someone in white, then red or black etc).
"Subject observed driving suspiciously slowly near a high security target. It could have been a terrorist doing a target recce."
I mean, I know there are plenty of other reasons he could have pulled out of his ass, (and lets be honest, none of need to be true for the court to allow them) but in this case TERRORISM. That has godda work every time. Right?
He really needs better training on 'excuses for a stop the court will allow'.
Re: Re: Re: Re: That troubling 'Constitution' again
Yeah. And all the corruption in government and industry is the fault of those least able to do anything about it, while those who are able to do something about it try to hide and avoid accountability, bribe others to cover it up, purchase laws which give them immunity.
Oh wait, you're referring to the election system and how the little people have total control over who is in office ... hahahahahahahahahaha, tell me another joke.